Quoting Baroque ():Probably not, just as it would not fit all that well under a 787-10 or 11 come to that, unless they are a "bit different" to the current manifestations! Which leave GE trying to develop a 115MkII for the 77W only or an entirely different engine that could fit stretched 787s and or 350s. And the word to Airbus was "niet" for one of those apps.

I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines.

I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range - or at least to a level of efficiency they feel is necessary to make such an engine competitive to the Trent XWB.

What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

So I wonder if GE can't update the GE90-115b with contra-rotation, IBR compressors and a new fan with wide chord blades for the 777 while working with Pratt to improve the GP7200 to not only power the A350, but also improve it's position vs. the Trent 900 on the A380 program. It would also make sure that if Rolls does offer the Trent XWB for the A380-900, EA has an equal engine, as well.

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):GE doesn't have a 65-95k lbs engines in their portfolio.

Yes they do. It's called the GE90-7xb and GE90-9xb.

Admittedly, those engines are not going to be competitive on an SFC basis with the current generation, but again, GE could conceivably develop a new fan and add both IBR and contra-rotation to improve SFC by a significant amount.

The GP7200 has been tested to almost 82,000lbs of thrust, but GE found another 20,000 pounds in the GE90 family so I don't see why Engine Alliance can't do so, either. I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): I imagine it will not be an easy or inexpensive process, but a GP7375, GP7385 and GP7395 (75k / 85k / 95k) would be enough to power the A350 family and also be adaptable to the A380 family.

No doubt GE can pull this off and no doubt it will take a lot of money. But the question is: what is GE willing to do? So far they have not made a move after their "no" to the Airbus request for an all new engine for the A350-XWB.

The stakes are getting higher for Boeing and GE when it comes to this one. But no doubt they will find an answer to change the current situation. And then the competition can make their counter move a generation (or quicker then that) later. Which keeps us on our toes. .

Quote:Presumably that wing would then be available later for a retrofit to longer range 789s? Or is that too simple?

No I don't think that is too simple, and that is the approach I've been advocating for a while. Do a 787-10 with a modified and enlarged wing and then go back and fit that to a -9 fuselage to make a 787-9LR. The only potential catch is that the landing gear might require modification as well, which would increase the money and effort required but isn't an insurmountable obstacle.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):I still think Airbus' dismissal of the GEnx was more a PR move - they want a "new" engine for their "new" airplane so they can tell customers the 787 is both an "old" airframe and it's using "old" engines

I am led to believe that RR are internally targetting Trent 1000 (or 787) spec minus 4% for the Trent XWB SFC.
I don't know if that renders the GEnx "old" or not, but it's a not insignificant gap

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):I also think GE just can't scale the GEnx to the levels needed to power the entire A350 range

Agree

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):What intrigues me is can EA adapt the GP7200 for the A350? The fan diameter is within 2" of the Trent XWB and while the current GP7200 won't be competitive on an SFC basis with the Trent XWB, lightsaber believes EA has up to a 6% SFC reduction available and if they add contra-rotation, they can match the Trent XWB's SFC.

The only thing that I see as an issue here is that even at 118", RR are going to have to go to a new technology level on the 93k lb Trent XWB to achieve all of the characteristics, i.e. SFC, thrust, emissions etc.

I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):I'm pretty sure EA could develop the GP7000 for the A350-800 and -900, but I'd question whether it's capable of being developed to 93k lb and still hit ALL of the spec parameters

It can't even be considered unless the EU drops the stipulation that EA engines can only be used on 4-holers. Given that it would be in Airbus' interest, I don't actually see there being much resistance - except maybe from RR!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):True, but GE will be beating spec by a couple percent with PiP2 in 2013, so they should be close to the Trent XWB when the A350 enters service.

That's as maybe, but Airbus's "dismissal" of the GEnx would surely have been based on whatever GE were prepared to contract to at the time, not "might-have-beens" that have subsequently become manifest.

Of course there's no saying the Trent XWB won't beat it's figures by 2% a couple of years after EIS either..

In truth, though, I suspect it was the size limit that really put the nails in the coffin for the GEnx..

It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models. I can see offering exclusivity on the -1000 because GE isn't keen on making an engine of the thrust required but they wouldn't have any issues with the -800 and -900. It seems to me like they are potentially shooting some sales in the foot.

I feel they would have garnered a few more sales of the smaller models had they not been so intransigent and offered another engine.

Still, I don't run a major airline producing company so my logic may be a bit flawed.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):It still baffles me why Airbus has been so staunch in demanding any engine producer make an engine to scale all three 350 models.

Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

It think there's high pressure on GE to come up with a state of the art 80-90k lbs engine from
- Boeing (787-9HGW, 787-10, 777-200NNG),
- Airbus (A350-900R, -900F, -1000) and most important :
- a dozen of major GE loyal airlines,
- GE risk sharing engine shops and subcontractors.
- the competition, RR is having a field day with the Trent XWB and probably has proposed a XWB variant to Boeing already!

GE has lost hundreds of potential orders. No doubt there are 2 camps within GE and they have already started preliminairy studies for either a lighter modified GE-11X, an enlarged GENX or something new.

Eventually it is going to have to be "something new" but so far, that school of thought does not seem to be winning. Probably a look inside the GE finances would give a clue. But lack of a new engine probably means anything but inaction, just nothing to see - yet!

I'm actually going to break ranks and suggest that GE means what it says. To hell with the A350!

They are already No.1 by some margin. They are winning (so far) on the 787. They have the 777 sewn up. They have exclusivity on the 747 and EA is pulling ahead on the A380.

You can't with 'em all. The A350 is juicy and they've missed the boat (to mix my metaphors) but it's hardly a life-or-death issue.

...which it was - or at least more so - to RR.

RR has the A330 nailed but T700 sales can't last forever. RR have a solid 35% of the 787 but they're lagging behind GE. RR aren't on the 777 or 747 and, after an initial lead, the EY order for 10 and EK's continuing demand for A380s has handed EA the lead.

RR need a good, solid widebody application.

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):Offering a new type without an engine that covers all models. And that baffles you? Has it ever happened before? What about commonality.

On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling. These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.

I could see where Airbus might fear an airline would buy the A350-800 / A350-900 with GE power and then eschew the A350-1000 (with RR power) for the 777-300ER because it would also have GE power and they might already operate the type, so it would be an incentive to continue to add more of the same rather then start adding the A350-1000.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):So yah, when they could offer a GE engine to customers as an option to improve sales on the -900 and -800, they don't, that's baffling.

Yet you still haven't offered any evidence to support this claim. Which airlines have purchased the 787 and not the A350 becuase there was no GE offering on the A350? See reply 13 - Airbus say they've never lost a sale because of a lack of engine choice.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):These two models will be out long before the -1000 which is the stick in the mud and many airlines ordering the smaller models won't order the -1000, so commonality is meaningless.

Engine commonality might not be an issue for an airline that only ordered one model. While it is true that airlines that have ordered the -800 and -900 might never order the -1000, the reverse is far less likely. Given that 75% of current -1000 customers have also ordered the smaller A350s, I suggest engine commonality across the entire range is far from meaningless.

To come somewhat back to topic, given that CX has 30 options AND the contractual option of switching some of the order to -1000s, do you think engine commonality wouldn't be an issue for them?

And just such an application - and a gold-plated one to boot - has dropped into their lap.

Ultimately, the A350 means more to RR than it does to GE. GE can afford to sit on their hands.

Absolutly, at one time it looked like RR could be locked out of future widebodies, had to fight PW to get on the 787, locked out of the A350 for at least 3 years production, 772 business dead, not on 77L/W; but they were handed a lifeline when the original A350 project collapsed and they leapt at the second chance with the XWB, they would have been happy to fight GE to 50/50 but GE didn't come back for the fight, which was a huge win for RR.

As to GE being able to sit on their hands, presuming that GE secured exclusivity on the 748 the old fashioned way, ie by taking a risk sharing stske where does that leave GE if the program is in loss?

The 772 NG(10 abreast, 330 seats), depending on the extent of change, may hold some promise as a competitor to A359(9 abreast, 314 seats). Another possibility is to stretch the 772 by about 8 feet, making it a 350 seat aircraft, with 773 NG at current length coming in at 400 seats.

My calculations suggest that 773 NG will do well against A350-1000 for long/dense routes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-boeings-777-successor-drive.html
Quote:
However, the 787-9 could hold more potential to fill the role the 777-200ER holds, says the managing director of a lessor who has reviewed detailed dimensions of both aircraft. The leasing company says that the cabin lengths of both aircraft are nearly identical at around 49m (161ft), placing the 787-9 with nine-abreast seating and a range of 8,000-8,500nm (14,800-15,800km), nearly on par with the larger -200ER.

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):747? A few have been sold during the last 3 years, Boeings says the program is in a loss position.

"a loss position"? Perhaps, but the -8F will surely keep selling. As of today Boeing have sold 109 747-8s (all models) so that's 450+ GEnx engines with more to come. Don't tell me that isn't good business for GE. (At worst, GE will sell as many GEnx2s as RR sold Trent 500s and no-one suggests that RR lost money on that disappointingly short production run.)

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):The most interesting part now is that Boeing also needs a state of the art 90k lbs engine from GE now, to counter the A350-900 in whatever form.

I wonder what would happen if Boeing asked RR for such an engine, explicitly to challenge the A350...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):On what airliner family, previous to the 350 has there been only one engine model offered where another engine met spec on some of the models?

TriStar?

But you're missing the point, I think. The days when PW could hang JT9Ds under the wings of 747s and A310s (among others) and GE could do the same with the CF6 have gone.

Each application now really demands a bespoke engine. Even the GEnx1 and GEnx2 have significant differences. (And, yes, I know that there were different versions of the CF6 but much the same engine did (does) power very different airliners.)

GE does not have - and never did - an engine they could simply take off the shelf for the A350XWB. Even a GEnx (GEnx3?) for only the -800 and -900 would have required a fair bit of work.

So, at present, there is no "other engine [that meets] spec on some of the models".

25 JoeCanuck
: It's not a claim of any sort If you read my previous post you would have read, among other things this; It's an opinion. I never said there still cou

26 PM
: Well, the "result" so far is that Airbus have sold getting on for 600 A350s with no engine choice. How many more sales they might have had, we'll nev

27 BMI727
: But how much compared to a 787-10? The -9 can already compete from the lower end, and I can't imagine being able to squeeze enough performance out of

28 keesje
: Looking at what airlines said & decided in the last 5 years, I think it has to be the 787-10 iso a reengined 777. RR would have an engine "of the

29 LAXDESI
: I agree that a 787 with capacity of 330 seats would have better economics than 772NG. Anything upto 370 seats, a 9 abreast platform should outperform

30 EA772LR
: Excellent post PM and well summed up. I think those on here speaking of 'dire straits' for GE forget how successful GE still is and have been. The ex

31 Stitch
: Gross orders for the family this year are looking pretty solid and the cancellations are due to GFC-related issues, not dissatisfaction with the fami

32 BMI727
: Honestly I think that if Boeing passes up the 787-10 in favor of a 777-200NG just to save some money by having parallel development with the -300NG,

33 LAXDESI
: Ideally, Boeing should do both 77W NG(400 seats) and 787-10(310-330 seats) concurrently, but lack of resources will dictate one before the other. I f

34 BMI727
: If I were them, I would reverse that with the caveat of getting weight reductions and engine improvements on the 77W as soon as possible. I think tha

35 328JET
: I believe, we will not see a B787-10 soon. It is more likely that Boeing is looking at a combined replacement for both the B77E and B77L first. An upd

36 BMI727
: The problem with that is that a 787-10 and 777-200NG cover the same size segments (the 787-10 would be a bit bigger and the 787-9 a bit smaller) but

37 JoeCanuck
: I'm of a similar mind. I think Boeing already has the 787-9 sneaking up on the 777-200 segment. It would probably take less time and effort to make a

38 BMI727
: I think that we will see quite a few 777 operators choosing the 787-9, and some choosing the A359 and 787-10. I think that it is better for everybody

39 StickShaker
: I also struggle to see how a 772NG would be competitive with the A359 or 787-10. The simple stretch 787-10 would be utilising the latest technologies